Patent decision
- BL number
- O/259/13
- Concerning rights in
- EP(UK) 0170375 and related patents
- Hearing Officer
- Mr J Elbro
- Decision date
- 21 June 2013
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Ian Alexander Shanks v Unilever Plc, Unilever NV and Unilever UK Central Resources Limited
- Provisions discussed
- Patents Act 1977 section 40
- Keywords
- Employees / employment
- Related Decisions
- O/138/09, S V U PLC [2010] RPC11, S V U PLC [2011] RPC12
Summary
The patents related to an electrochemical test device and a method a manufacturing an electrochemical test device. It had particular application in the field of glucose testing in blood for diabetes. The claimant argued that the patents had been of outstanding benefit to his employer and therefore, in accordance with section 40(1) of the Patents Act 1977, he was entitled to a fair share of that benefit. Section 40 was amended by the Patents Act 2004 but this case was governed by the earlier legislation.
The defendants exploited the patents solely by licensing them to a number of licensees until they were sold as part of the sale of Unipath in 2001. The hearing officer found that the benefit to the claimants due to the patents was around £24 million in money terms over a period of years. He considered this benefit in the light of the defendants’ profits and turnover, in relation to patents in general, in the context of the defendants’ other licensing activities, in view of the defendants’ patent activities, and compared to the defendants’ activities in general and, considering the totality of the evidence, held that the benefit fell short of being outstanding. The hearing officer did however go on to express his views on what a fair share of the benefit would have been had he held the benefit to have been of outstanding benefit to the employer. Taking into account the provisions of section 41(4) he considered 5% would have been an appropriate fair share of the benefit for the claimant had he held the benefit to be outstanding.
This decision has been redacted due to confidentiality.
Full decision O/259/13 
371Kb
